This is the title of a well written article in this month's edition of THE ARMCHAIR GENERAL (PG. 70). The author postulates that if, following the fall of France, Hitler had listend to the advice of Admiral Raeder (as well as Kietel, Jodel, and Halder) and sent 4 armoured divisions to Africa (Lybia), it would have resulted in a domino efect. To wit: Take Egypt, Suez, and the near middle east. Closing the suez canal would allow the Axis to interdict the Eastern Med. That would knock out Greece (or allow for an easy capture). Invade French North Africa, Dakkar, Malta, and The Middle East. Take Gibraltar (if anyone is still there).

Russia is now in an analogus position as Poland in 1939------they have an extra front to cover, and it contains a good portion of their oil. No need to invade, they would cheerfulls supply raw material for finished goods. Basically Germany has Europe, less the Baltic States and Bessarabia/Bucknovia, a chunk Africa, and the middle east.

Opinions? (If you can, read the article...it is short and you don't need to buy the magizine. Personally I think that the only way it could work is if the first step was to shoot Hitler. He was not prone to listen to advice, or do things in any manner other than brute force (post 1939). Also the Germans lacked the logistics to supply such a venture. Still, it would have taken a lot less troops that Barbarossa, and thos extre soldiers could have building Tracked Trucks and supply ships. Who knows?

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time" J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

All Hitler needed to do to come out as a winner was to not invade Poland and keep Austria, Czech, the Rhineland and East Prussia. He probably could have negotiated the Danzig corridor back from Poland.

The author postulates that if, following the fall of France, Hitler had listend to the advice of Admiral Raeder (as well as Kietel, Jodel, and Halder) and sent 4 armoured divisions to Africa (Lybia), it would have resulted in a domino efect. To wit: Take Egypt, Suez, and the near middle east. Closing the suez canal would allow the Axis to interdict the Eastern Med. That would knock out Greece (or allow for an easy capture). Invade French North Africa, Dakkar, Malta, and The Middle East. Take Gibraltar (if anyone is still there). Russia is now in an analogus position as Poland in 1939------they have an extra front to cover, and it contains a good portion of their oil. No need to invade, they would cheerfulls supply raw material for finished goods. Basically Germany has Europe, less the Baltic States and Bessarabia/Bucknovia, a chunk Africa, and the middle east.

Don't see how it would help, it would simply spread out the German troops even further. Where in Africa would they stop? Also the Caucusus is defensive terrain, the Soviets could hold out for ages. They would also, unlike the Germans, have an advantage of internal communications. If the Germans took Baku, it would have hurt the Soviets but they had other sources of oil, e.g. beyond the Urals. Plus if the Germans started moving into the Middle East, you have to consider the Soviet counter reaction. I think it is likely that Soviets would annex or ally with Iran or Turkey or both. The British still have their navy and the Germans would have a lot of vulnerable shipping. AFAIK the British alone outproduced the Germans, so its not like Germans would have a lot of spare capacity to build ships. Also if the Germans moved in to take the French colonies, the German agreement with Petain would be void and the French fleet would join the British.

I've always felt taking out Britian with a fleet of transport submarines (moving the main force into the northern territory while feinting in the south was the way to victory for the Germans along with taking N. Africa and the Mediteranian as well. They wasted too many needed planes in the BFB. I would have done nothing but nighttime strategic bombings of radar installations myself as I do in most of my games I play. ;) I also would hold off on any war with Russia until necessary and would have had diplomatic negotiations to "share the wealth" if Russia would throw in with me. I don't need to control the whole world, just half of it. ;)

Ravinhood is dead, spot on. Conservative estimates are that had Germany continued their bombing campaign of England, the R.A.F could only sustain two-three more weeks until it had exhausted it's men and resources. A fateful decesion to pause at Dunkirk and not send Germany's armour divisions in also let 250,000-300,000 English and French escape. The ill fated timing of the Russian campaign with it's unnecessary pauses and decesion not to press forward at certain points in time has been well documented. Long and short of it, had Hitler let his generals run the war, and not meddled, the outcome quite certainly might have been different.

WOW DID THAT STIR THE POT! Y'all ought to read the article, only took 5 min @Wal-Mart. Didn't even have to buy the magazine. NOTE. 1) No Battle of Britan. 2) No Barbarossa. After France falls, take Egypt, French North Africa, Dakkar, and the Middle East. Stay allied w/Russia and use them as a supply source. Strangle England w/U Boats & isolate her from supply sources (e.g. India, Austrailia, Canada). The plan requires more logistic support than the Germans had, but if they demobilized some troops the could use them to build tracked supply vehicles. 4 armour divisions to N Afrika starts the domino effect. Probable only feasible after removal of Hitler, as he was not sucess oriented after 1940.

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time" J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

TOCarroll, I have a couple of books that cover some "alternate history". One is "Hitler Slept Late", by James P. Duffy, and the other is "The Hitler Options", edited by Kenneth Macksey. You can probably find them on Amazon.

I've always felt taking out Britian with a fleet of transport submarines (moving the main force into the northern territory while feinting in the south was the way to victory for the Germans along with taking N. Africa and the Mediteranian as well. They wasted too many needed planes in the BFB. I would have done nothing but nighttime strategic bombings of radar installations myself as I do in most of my games I play. ;) I also would hold off on any war with Russia until necessary and would have had diplomatic negotiations to "share the wealth" if Russia would throw in with me. I don't need to control the whole world, just half of it. ;)

But to do that requires the Nazi party not to be the Nazi party. The whole reason for the war was to beat Russia. And according to the view of the upper echelons of the Nazi party, the war on Russia had to be launched by spring 1942 at the latest.

I won't comment on the submarine idea but I will point out that supplying even more divisions in North Africa would have been something beyond the Italian and Germans' logistical abilities.

(Reply to several). Thanks for the tips on the books, and the opinions. I tend to agree. Hitler (& the Nazi's) could not have won World War 2, due to among other things their racist philosophy and rampant corruption in their government. HOWEVER....Germany was in a position, following the Fall of France, to knock out England and avoid war with Russia. IT IS A VERY BIG WHAT-IF, BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH GERMAN MILITARY CAPACITY, and would have probably required removal of the Nazi Goverment and SS, which could well have cause a civil war. I only brought it up because of the article in The Armchair General. The viabality of the "Raeder Paln" has been argued back and forth since at least 1945, and probably before that. See "The German Genrals Talk (and talk, and talk....) B. H. Liddel Hart. Hart himself says that it was a much more dangerous line of attack than attacking Russia.

I find the theory interesting, because so many WW2 games have to make special rules to prohibit the Germans from doing just that. (Third Reich---Malta Rule + Cyprus rule). The key, as Lidell-Hart points out, is the logistics, always a sticky point in multi-theater games.

I would like to see a game where the Axis can opt to use their resources a bit more sensibly.....maybe let the Germans allow Italy to use their PzIII & IV designs (ouch). Or more fully motorize the army instead of building capital ships. Lots of what-if's.

Tom OC

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time" J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).

Ravinhood is dead, spot on. Conservative estimates are that had Germany continued their bombing campaign of England, the R.A.F could only sustain two-three more weeks until it had exhausted it's men and resources. A fateful decesion to pause at Dunkirk and not send Germany's armour divisions in also let 250,000-300,000 English and French escape. The ill fated timing of the Russian campaign with it's unnecessary pauses and decesion not to press forward at certain points in time has been well documented. Long and short of it, had Hitler let his generals run the war, and not meddled, the outcome quite certainly might have been different.

I think you and Ravinhood are actually wide of the mark.

By the end of the BOB, Britain had more fighters than she started with, germany had many less. Only one British airfield was actually out of action during the infamous airfield bombing phase usually cited as the point the RAF was nearly defeated, that was biggin hill, and that was only out of action for a few hours.

Fact is, the Germans never even got close during the BOB. Fighter Command could have gone on for a lot longer if required. I certainly think they could have defeated the Luftwaffe had they pushed it that far. When they switched to night bombing, though, the luftwaffe were essentially conceding the battle.

The stop order at Dunkirk was a grievous mistake, and I suspect the war was lost right there.

As for the Russian campaign, I think the Germans were defeated quite possibly before they started. I don't think any of the strategic decisions they made are necessarily bad ones, mainly because I can see a rationale for most of them, and I think the underlying problems the Germans encountered would have been encountered whatever strategic decisions were made.

What about the possibility of having waited another two years before Germany rattled its sword. This would have given them valuble time to build up their army and weapons.

Personally, I think the key is keeping the US out of the war at all costs. That means immediately assaulting England after Dunkirk and refraining from the alliance with Japan.

Fantasy thought... could a deal have been struck with Stalin to allow him hegemony in Asia in exchange for a partition of eastern Europe and peace with Germany?

Picture the Russians going after China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and Japan. Japan wouldn't attack the US and if England falls... where does that leave the US? A new tri-partite pact that guarantees the US total hegemony in North and South America, Russia hegemony in East Europe, and most of Asia, and the 3rd Reich controls Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The world is divided three ways.

Under estimating England’s ability to defend herself against invasion would have gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

Maybe so, but turning away from an invasion of England to attack the Soviet Union HAS gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

If England falls, the chance to prevent a US entry into the war becomes a much more likely scenario.

This is a fantasy thread anyway.

What if Hitler had anticipated the Fall of France and had made some detailed plans for an invasion of Britain... perhaps the manufacture of hundreds of torpedo boats to seal off the Channel from the Royal Navy? An additional airborne division to strike at London and decapitate the Brtish government?

What if Hitler had realized that massed air power could destroy any sortie's by the Royal Navy that might threaten his invasion transports? Of course, the Prince of Wales and Repulse weren't going down for another year to make that point, but he could have had that insight. If the Germans had been able to put a couple of armored corps ashore in England, exactly what did the Brits have to defend with if it was done very quickly after Dunkirk? Was Churchill correct that they "would never surrender"?... or would they have agreed to work out some kind of deal?

Again... this is a fantasy thread so I'm just throwing out some speculation here.

I've always felt taking out Britian with a fleet of transport submarines (moving the main force into the northern territory while feinting in the south was the way to victory for the Germans along with taking N. Africa and the Mediteranian as well. They wasted too many needed planes in the BFB. I would have done nothing but nighttime strategic bombings of radar installations myself as I do in most of my games I play. ;) I also would hold off on any war with Russia until necessary and would have had diplomatic negotiations to "share the wealth" if Russia would throw in with me. I don't need to control the whole world, just half of it. ;)

Aw, it would probably be more practical to have doen what an interviewed Galland said to Hitler. That was to drop in troops in heavy fog such as what they did at Oslo. From what Galland said though, Hitler didn't really want to beat England because they were racially very much like the germans and turned Galland down on that basis. That might be the real reason why the evacuation at Dunkirk ever came off and that the panzers had the halt order.

I recall in another documentary, or perhaps it was the same one (something about how Hitler could have won the war) where one British fellow said he thought an invasion, even a puny one which is what they were liable to face, would have worked, because they had nothing to fight with, and then he mentioned that he had a friend who defended an entire 2 miles of beach with one WWI artillery piece.

What about the possibility of having waited another two years before Germany rattled its sword. This would have given them valuble time to build up their army and weapons.

Personally, I think the key is keeping the US out of the war at all costs. That means immediately assaulting England after Dunkirk and refraining from the alliance with Japan.

Fantasy thought... could a deal have been struck with Stalin to allow him hegemony in Asia in exchange for a partition of eastern Europe and peace with Germany?

Picture the Russians going after China, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea, and Japan. Japan wouldn't attack the US and if England falls... where does that leave the US? A new tri-partite pact that guarantees the US total hegemony in North and South America, Russia hegemony in East Europe, and most of Asia, and the 3rd Reich controls Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The world is divided three ways.

Just a wild bit of speculation... tear it up guys.

Just think if England and France had bothered to not ignore the fact that Poland was invaded by more than just Germany! I still to this day don't know of the defense pact they signed with Poland was for them to declare war on any powers invading Poland or just Germany. I bet eng/fra didn't send any dignitaries to the USSR to insist on them pulling out of Poland as they did Germany, because we certainly have never heard of them ever making even a whisper in the USSR's direction concerning that invasion. Imagine that. Suppose Germany does pull out of Poland, so what does eng/fr do when the USSR does not? I guess in German view, once the USSR entered they couldn't pull out, because they knew eng-fr wasn't going to be in any hurry to oust the USSR-held Poland, and probably would have still ignored it because the uSSR was too powerful in their eyes. Germany couldn't pull out, therefore, because that would leave USSR troops on the German border.

Maybe so, but turning away from an invasion of England to attack the Soviet Union HAS gone down as one of the biggest miscalculations in military history.

If England falls, the chance to prevent a US entry into the war becomes a much more likely scenario.

This is a fantasy thread anyway.

What if Hitler had anticipated the Fall of France and had made some detailed plans for an invasion of Britain... perhaps the manufacture of hundreds of torpedo boats to seal off the Channel from the Royal Navy? An additional airborne division to strike at London and decapitate the Brtish government?

What if Hitler had realized that massed air power could destroy any sortie's by the Royal Navy that might threaten his invasion transports? Of course, the Prince of Wales and Repulse weren't going down for another year to make that point, but he could have had that insight. If the Germans had been able to put a couple of armored corps ashore in England, exactly what did the Brits have to defend with if it was done very quickly after Dunkirk? Was Churchill correct that they "would never surrender"?... or would they have agreed to work out some kind of deal?

Again... this is a fantasy thread so I'm just throwing out some speculation here.

Meh, I'm no good at these fantasy threads, so mind if I play debunker?

Which part of the German war machine gets sacrificed to train the seamen and build all the requisite craft to get the Germans across the channel? Would this not alter the situation in France? Such preparations would also have sped up Britain's preparations for war as Britain's centuries old stance of naval superiority over continental powers would have been threatened once again.

Massed air power was used at Dunkirk. It was considered to be less than successful - British ships were sunk but the German pilots found it difficult to target the smaller vessels. And vessels of a similar size were what needed to be sunk in the Channel to ensure the safe crossing of an invasion fleet and subsequent supplies and reinforcements. It's not just the 'big' ships which need sinking but several hundred smaller patrol craft too.

Immediately after Dunkirk, Britain had two fully equipped infantry divisions and the equivalent of 23 further infantry divisions lacking in heavy artillery (perhaps 40% of establishment in total). A German invasion force at this time would be coming straight from battle in France, with minimal time to refit, and would certainly suffer losses on the way over the channel as well as being severely hamstrung for supplies upon arrival. The lack of a mobile reserve would be a problem for the British but then it was hardly a secret where the German invasion was likely to arrive and British dispositions were based on this.

I once wrote out an alternate timeline to try and get the Germans across the channel which accounted for likely British and French responses. The only way in which I could do it was to let Germany win WW1

...By the end of the BOB, Britain had more fighters than she started with, germany had many less. Only one British airfield was actually out of action during the infamous airfield bombing phase usually cited as the point the RAF was nearly defeated, that was biggin hill, and that was only out of action for a few hours.

Fact is, the Germans never even got close during the BOB. Fighter Command could have gone on for a lot longer if required. I certainly think they could have defeated the Luftwaffe had they pushed it that far. When they switched to night bombing, though, the luftwaffe were essentially conceding the battle...

The BOB discussion should be centered on the radar network; its the key point for the critical early phases during BOB.

Brit radar network had relay nodes that formed the backbone of the defense... Luftwaffe had pummeled these to the point where another week of hits would have closed down the radar network. From that point on Luftwaffe would have arrived unannounced and would not have faced the concentrated RAF response that was so successful historically.

Analysis I've read suggests a loss for the RAF at that point was very much a possibility.

I would like to see a game where the Axis can opt to use their resources a bit more sensibly.....maybe let the Germans allow Italy to use their PzIII & IV designs (ouch). Or more fully motorize the army instead of building capital ships. Lots of what-if's.

Check out the World in Flames forum. When this is released, you'll be able control production, politics, grand strategy and operations when playing the Axis (or the Allies). It's being based on the successful and critically acclaimed paper-based wargame of the same name and one of the viable strategies is a concentration on the Med and/or massive submarine construction.

The exerpt below is from the playguide for paper WiF. It contains some WiF jargon about bidding. This is a process by which the players (2-6 people) for the major powers can be fairly decided but doesn't have to be used. There are other considerations to do with players on the same side actually competing with each other to a certain extent for individual victory. That is, the player controlling say Italy, can win the game if Italy does particularly well, whilst still striving for Axis victory (which incidently rarely involves total global domination). This simulates natural, nationalist tensions quite well.

Grand strategy A single game turn may consist of 10 or more impulses, and each impulse may involve naval, land and air activities. Because of this unpredictability, you can never make a perfect plan. Instead your plans must be those that have a reasonable chance of being carried out in the time allocated (see turn length & initiative below). In other words, you must play percentages when you plan ahead. The game is really all about focus. If you can focus your opponents’ attention from one front to another, you have already halfway beaten them. Players (particularly the Commonwealth) tend to concentrate on only one theatre, allowing players less competent than they are to defeat them elsewhere. The fact that the objectives are evenly spread dictates that the non-European maps should not be ignored. Far too often, Allied players fixate on the European maps and throw away their chance of victory. Because of the global spread of the Allied powers, they have the luxury of being able to choose whether to weight their efforts towards Europe or the Pacific. If they can concentrate on the Pacific, Japan will be rapidly conquered. Therefore, Germany and Italy must spend the early years of the war dragging the Allied player’s attention onto Europe. Fortunately, the fact that the Axis have the first shot at victory makes this quite easy. If Germany can conquer Britain or Russia it is almost impossible for the Axis to lose. If both are conquered, they have won and will dominate the globe. Thus, the two obvious Axis strategies are to attack Britain or Russia (after France has fallen), to which the Allies must respond by committing the bulk of their efforts in shoring up the attacked Major Power. A third Axis strategy is to establish a defensive perimeter from Gibraltar to Suez, planning a late attack on Russia in 1942 or 1943, not necessarily to conquer her, but to gain valuable resources and better defence lines. The disadvantage of this strategy is that it hands the initiative to the Allies after the conquest of France. Therefore, they may find the time to concentrate on Japan. Furthermore, in this latest version of WiF, Soviet production increases when she is at war with Germany, making her even more formidable. However, if the Allies have bid high, this can be a very successful strategy. Do not exclude the Japanese from discussions on European strategy on the grounds that it does not affect them. Instead, the Axis should co-ordinate their attacks globally to stretch their opponents to the limit. For example, if Germany is fighting the Commonwealth when Japan comes to war, India and Australia become logical targets. If Germany is attacking Russia then Vladivostok could be easily plucked. The Axis should be careful about switching from attack to defence. If it is left too late, their forces could be hopelessly over stretched. You should convert to a defensive strategy when it becomes apparent that further offensives cannot achieve rewards commensurate with the effort. That is not to say that the early years are all out attack. You must always leave garrisons in your home countries to deter any surprise invasions or paradrops. An early dilemma for the Allies is that saving Russia can cripple the Commonwealth and vice versa. The Commonwealth must turn the United Kingdom into such a mighty fortress that the Axis won’t dare invade (a bit of macho bombast can help here), leaving Germany no choice but to attack Russia. Russia of course is doing exactly the same thing; not wanting the United Kingdom to be conquered of course, but hoping the Germans will become seriously entangled. Russia and the Commonwealth should be aware of the consequences that their actions have on their ally and find the right balance. If the Allies can survive until US entry, the scales tip inexorably and ever more rapidly against the Axis. You will have the luxury of being able to strike where and when you like and with substantial forces, thus wresting the initiative from the Axis. Do not become over-confident though, or you could over stretch yourself and leave the Axis in a position to launch a devastating counter-attack. Your attack must be based on your defence, not replace it. By about this point you are probably kicking yourself at the ridiculously high number of objectives you bid to be one of the Allies. Don’t despair. Even though the Axis seem to weaken at an imperceptible rate, when the collapse occurs, it is spectacular. I have seen the Russians sweep 20 hexes across Europe in one turn (I was the Germans and I counted every hex). A turn like that can salvage what seems to be the most hopeless of positions. If Japan can be conquered quickly, knock her out first. If however you are enmeshed in Europe, your largest forces must concentrate there to conquer Germany and Italy first. Italy is subject to the knock-out conquest and she should be targeted early. When heading for victory, be sure your forces get to those vital objectives first. Sure, you are wholeheartedly committed to the Alliance (or Axis), just so long as your “allies” realise who’s putting in the most effort here. Your labours, quite properly, should be suitably rewarded. After all, you are being extremely generous letting your “allies” come second, what more could they want?

...By the end of the BOB, Britain had more fighters than she started with, germany had many less. Only one British airfield was actually out of action during the infamous airfield bombing phase usually cited as the point the RAF was nearly defeated, that was biggin hill, and that was only out of action for a few hours.

Fact is, the Germans never even got close during the BOB. Fighter Command could have gone on for a lot longer if required. I certainly think they could have defeated the Luftwaffe had they pushed it that far. When they switched to night bombing, though, the luftwaffe were essentially conceding the battle...

The BOB discussion should be centered on the radar network; its the key point for the critical early phases during BOB.

Brit radar network had relay nodes that formed the backbone of the defense... Luftwaffe had pummeled these to the point where another week of hits would have closed down the radar network. From that point on Luftwaffe would have arrived unannounced and would not have faced the concentrated RAF response that was so successful historically.

Analysis I've read suggests a loss for the RAF at that point was very much a possibility.

To a point, no argument, but they never did enough damage and I suspect would have needed to use ground forces to completely shut down the net work. In itself, it would never had beaten Fighter Command since they could have relocated to bases north of London if lack of warning was allowing the Germans to hit their souther coast bases round the clock, but it would have given the Germans the sort of air superiority they needed over Kent and Sussex to give Sealion a chance of a successful landing had they figured out how to beat he Royal Navy.

There are two things here, the defeat of fighter command or the winning or air superiority over the country south of London to pave thw ay for Sealion. I don't think the first was ever on, although the second may have been achievable in certain circumstances.

****You give the Western Allies too much credit...Even without their help, the Soviets would have been in Berlin sometime in 1946.

****The inability to capture Moscow and remove Stalin from power in a single campaign season was the greastest mistake. The Germans lost their best men and material to attrition on the Eastern Front during 42-43, while the soviets built an unstoppable sledgehammer of an army during that same period.

****If German forces had attacked in say, early May of 41, as opposed to late June, things might have been different. But after the winter of 41, all the Germans could ever hope for would be a stalemate with Russia somewhere in Eastern Europe. Thats if the Germans could have made "peace" with England and the sleeping giant long enough for them to realize the bigger, if not more evil, threat of Communism. It could have been like those Dodge commercials now with "Dr Z"...Mass produced King Tigers with Hemi engines!

BLESS YOU!!! This is what I was really hoping to hear, that World In Flames will give the player the capacity to make decisions of logistics, production types, and other vital semi-military (e.g. not exactly relating to something that shoots bullets or drops bombs) decisions that have Grand-Strategic Scope. The closest I have seen a game come to this so far is HOI2 (sorry for mentioning a heritic), which moves in the right direction, but isn't quite what I want.

I will be saving my pennies so that I can get the game when it's released. Heck, I waited a couple of years for TAOW3, and it was well worth it.

As to the military discussion:

There was no mention of Dunkirk, BOB, Sealion, or Barbarossa in the article quoted. The author simply requoted an ancient argument outlining a Military strategy (I agree, it wouldn't work with the Nazi's) for winning WW2 following the Fall of France. Devoted folks have put in a lot of good ideas on the subject, which I really enjoy. One person pointed out a key poin I missed...If Hitler/Rundstedt had not halted the panzers before Dunkirk, the Whermacht could have bagged The BEF!!! Sealion would have been unnecessary then. Also not too smart. The beaches were mined with quite a large amount anthrax spores (British document declassified in the 80's or 90's) which Churchill was willing to use if the Germans invaded. Yeah, they had gas masks for the men, but what about the horses?

Anyway, with or without the BEF, Sealion and anthrax, the plan was to supress Malta with ariel interdection to allow the supply of 4 Panzer Division. The feasability study was done by Ritter VonThoma. He thought they could take Eqypt & Suez.

_____________________________

"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time" J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).